Manipulation of the Media

America is waking up to the incredible news that three young women who vanished in separate incidents about a decade ago in the US state of Ohio have been found alive in a house in Cleveland.

Amanda Berry disappeared aged 16 in 2003, Gina DeJesus went missing aged 14 a year later, and Michelle Knight disappeared in 2002 aged around 19. A six-year-old was also found at the home, who speculation suggests could be Amanda Berry's daughter.

This is completely shocking story, for the length of time these young women were incarcerated, the seeming simplicity of the ultimate discovery or escape, and for the fact that the man who lived at the property was no recluse but often seen playing with his dog or bbq'ing on the front lawn. I find it incredible that something like this can go on for such a length of time and no one knew anything about it. One cannot help but speculate if this might be a result of the 'none of your business', individualist attitude which pervades modern society? Could we say that people lived closer together in communities until recently, and strange behavior, a closed house, a furtive resident, would be instantly picked up by neighbours?

My mind immediately went to the McCann family and what this news will mean to them. Will it reinvigorate their search? Will it offer fresh hope that little Madeleine might still be alive? I know what it is like to lose a child, but Ruth did not suffer, and I am confident that she is in heaven, gone from me physically. The idea that Madeleine might be alive somewhere, that she might be suffering or have suffered, I find impossibly difficult. If my own experience was tragic, difficult, painful, I can't imagine what Gerry and Kate McCann have gone through and are going through still today.

The other dimension to this which I find interesting is in relation to the terrible Kermit Gosnell trial which is still ongoing in the USA. Although some brave (Catholic) journalists here in the UK have written about the story, in particular Damian Thompson and Dr. Tim Stanley in the Telegraph, there has been no TV coverage and nothing on the radio. Indeed, most people haven't even heard about this awful case, where Gosnell “regularly and illegally delivered live, viable babies in the third trimester of pregnancy – and then murdered these newborns” (a quote is taken from the grand jury report on the case).

As I woke this morning to our 24 hour media, and Sky News virtual non-stop coverage of what was going on in Ohio, I couldn't help but wonder why Gosnell wasn't being followed in such minute detail? Perhaps because UK journalists hadn't heard about it themselves? That's not the case, as I tweeted Eamon Holmes and Charlotte Hawkins about it myself. Both are great on Twitter and often interact, but I didn't even get an acknowledgement on this issue. Jeremy Vine on BBC Radio 2 is also the sort of show where you would expect this case to be covered in detail. Certainly today's show had a big section on Amanda Berry in Ohio. When I posed the question directly a little while ago, Jeremy did re-tweet my link to the story (fair play to him). He also replied to me saying the team were looking into the story. But it hasn't been run, or received any further mention. I've asked why, but had no response.

In an age where the 24 hour news culture means that there is a virtually unquenchable thirst for new stories, and even the most minor incidents seem to be covered in the most lurid detail. Yet on this incredible story, about a man who routinely forced women who came to him into labour and then killed their babies, we hear nothing. The specifics of the case are seven counts of first degree murder, where it is alleged live babies where born, and then executed with scissors by Gosnell. In addition, A pregnant refugee, Karnamaya Mongar, also died after being given too much anesthesia and pain medication during a 2009 abortion at his West Philadelphia clinic.

I urge you, dear reader, to be awake to the manipulation of the media we are witnessing in this case. Be alert, be aware and know that freedom of speech and freedom of information are extremely relative concepts in this country. You can talk about whatever you like, as long as it doesn't challenge the liberal consensus

Popular posts from this blog

The legend reads:<<Oi Frankie, you have emasculated Congregations, suspended priests, decapitated the Order of Malta and the Franciscans of the Immaculate, ignored Cardinals...But where is your mercy?>>

Christians faced with the ravages of Bergoglio...Roma e' tappezzata - Rome is carpeted!

A source told me that the posters near the Vatican have already been covered up; but they ARE ALL OVER ROME!!

Newman, Letter to the Duke of Norfolk, Diff., II, 279-280

Here I am led to interpose a remark;—it is plain, then, that there are those near, or with access, to the Holy Father, who would, if they could, go much further in the way of assertion and command, than the divine Assistentia, which overshadows him, wills or permits; so {280} that his acts and his words on doctrinal subjects must be carefully scrutinised and weighed, before we can be sure what really he has said. Utterances which must be received as comin…

A few of days ago I posted about a new book called The Dictator Pope which has been really causing a stir as it claims to be the inside story of the most tyrannical and unprincipled papacy of modern times.

Now this was first posted on One Peter Five, which I love, but some criticise because it is a site critical of progressive catholic attitudes and modernism. Anyway some people these days dismiss certain sources because they tend to contradict their own agenda. I don't, as I have said here numerous times before, we are all parts of the body of Christ and that body has many parts (cf. 1 Cor 12). If I agree with everything someone says, I'm probably reading my own blog. We all get it wrong sometimes.

Anyway, I was concerned initially that this would be seen as a diatribe against the pope with an agenda. This would make the contents easier to dismiss.Almost read “The Dictator Pope”, of course it is all libelous gossip, the Church is not a dictatorship, is it? — raymond blake (@r…

Vaticanista Marco Tossati reports that even the faithless men who put Pope Francis on the throne of St. Peter are losing patience with his laissez faire, "make a mess" approach to being pope.

In his article on the AAS inclusion of the Buenos Aires directives, he remarks:
A cardinal of great renown, a former diplomat, who has served an impressive career at the head of Congregations and in high offices in the Secretariat of State, is said to have reproved the Pope for his actions [as Pope], saying to him essentially, “We elected you to make reforms, not to smash everything.” News of this conversation — if it can be called a conversation — has spread through the Vatican, because it took place at a high decibel level, which carried through the fragile barrier of the doors and walls. The cardinal in question was one of those who supported the candidacy of Jorge Mario Bergoglio in the conclave of 2013.Gloria.tv reports that this is most likely the Argentinian Leonardo Sandri, the…